midgerock

After years of scientific pursuit the boys, sick of the smell of rubber and rats, got together to form the band. Secretly longing for some action. Chuck could play a mean bass. And surprisingly Sig had rhythm. Tom is electrifying on the lead guitar. While Ivan is there to play the ever loving cow bell. And of course headlining is the man with the golden voice Albert Funky Funky Funkenstein! Put your hands together and make some noise! I can't hear you!!!

chumpmagic

Trashed the old one since many more people enjoyed this one. I made the mistake of not reading the new comments on that one, so I truly apologies to anyone who liked that one more.

Special thanks to OdRoc for recommending, and displaying a better color scheme. I usually go light shirt if I want my line art to shine more, so I am thankful for your "fresh" eyes and your willingness to help me out. I probably won't have noticed due to past habits.

odysseyroc

chumpmagic wrote:Trashed the old one since many more people enjoyed this one. I made the mistake of not reading the new comments on that one, so I truly apologies to anyone who liked that one more.

Special thanks to OdRoc for recommending, and displaying a better color scheme. I usually go light shirt if I want my line art to shine more, so I am thankful for your "fresh" eyes and your willingness to help me out. I probably won't have noticed due to past habits.

Thanks, Chump. I always like to help when I can. I generally spend 40-80 hours a week coloring, I'm constantly thinking about it. When you posted the sketch, I already had it colored in my head. Great job, btw.

Doonyal

This is so otterific! I use this rule ALL the time, my friends think i'm weird, but why let food go to waste? I really REALLY hope this prints, I might be willing to spare some money for one. If it doesn't please tell me if it prints some place else.

Darquis

Hahahaha I like it. And I can make a tenuous connection to scientific method...but I think woot might (if they're being strict) hit you for the "countdown" because it isn't a formula and therefore not allowable text. How you'd redo without it, I have NO clue, just throwing it out there.

Darquis

Cantatus wrote:I'll be honest and say I wouldn't. The shirt amuses me because it is a reference to one of my favorite parts in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

However, I'm not exactly sure why that's a bad thing. The context is part of the design, so changing that is going to change what people think about it. To me, it'd be the same thing as asking "Would you vote for this shirt if it used a frog instead of a teddy bear?"

I think BaldBob explained it really well. The shirt would still work based on it's concept (see also Styles' design) and could get more votes based on having funny things in comparison. But it really does trade on it's existence as a HHG reference. Which isn't bad, per se. But personally I'm a bit sick of that sort of thing is all. Just a personal preference.

Darquis

rabidwooter wrote:Cool shirt, I want one. Who cares about all the scientific garbage. This is a design contest, not an essay contest based on some theoretical scientific thesis. Quiet nerds, sheesh...

What you're saying is, essentially, "Who cares about the rules, this is a contest to make woot give you as much money as you can. Quit having an opinion". What's the point of having a theme if artist's are just going to ignore it and do what they want? We might as well just have it be kawaii week, every week, and pay Ramy enough to retire on, and get no variety in style or content.

rabidwooter

Darquis wrote:What you're saying is, essentially, "Who cares about the rules, this is a contest to make woot give you as much money as you can. Quit having an opinion". What's the point of having a theme if artist's are just going to ignore it and do what they want? We might as well just have it be kawaii week, every week, and pay Ramy enough to retire on, and get no variety in style or content.

Ok, go ahead and show me where the rules specifically state "Must be 100% scientifically accurate."

Doonyal

AdderXYU wrote:I didn't realize DNA was discovered in 2009. But this entry does highlight a very important issue: that your work is almost never something relevant to themes. This doesn't evoke any story of 2009. It's just a double helix that you attached to some other story that somehow involved DNA. And right now, it's off theme again because DNA is part of science, but not the scientific method. It is tenuous at best. Which would be an excellent screenname for you if Ramyb ever gets rightfully banned.

it is on topic, people just want to gripe about ramby

example:
Four basic elements of scientific method are illustrated below, by example from the discovery of the structure of DNA:
DNA-characterizations: in this case, although the significance of the gene had been established, the mechanism was unclear to anyone, as of 1950.
DNA-hypotheses: Crick and Watson hypothesized that the gene had a physical basis - it was helical.
DNA-predictions: from earlier work on tobacco mosaic virus, Watson was aware of the significance of Crick's formulation of the transform of a helix. Thus he was primed for the significance of the X-shape in photo 51.
DNA-experiments: Watson sees photo 51.

i will agree with mrwednesday though, that if those two shirts were supposed to be different, there isn't a big enough change really for it not to be an issue. Still enjoy your work though ramby.

Darquis

rabidwooter wrote:Ok, go ahead and show me where the rules specifically state "Must be 100% scientifically accurate."

Don't recall saying scientifically accurate. Woot didn't say hard science. They said
"This week, show us your take on the Scientific Method. Maybe you'll attest to the value of repeatable results, show us an experiment in motion" (cut because the rest was a joke).

And you mention some other designs, but for example, the caterpillar is testing a form of Bernoulli's principle (from fluid dynamics) which allows flight. As for the smiling beakers, I want them gone too, so that's not inconsistent. The caterpillar, though, is actually good scientific method.

Ramy slapped DNA on a shirt (and in fact has submitted this before, and wasn't really on topic then either). No experimentation, no results, no theory, no nothing, just pretty DNA.

If this were a biology derby or just "science" I might even be inclined to vote for it. But my liking a shirt doesn't make a shirt within the rules, and neither does yours.

Darquis

example:
Four basic elements of scientific method are illustrated below, by example from the discovery of the structure of DNA:
DNA-characterizations: in this case, although the significance of the gene had been established, the mechanism was unclear to anyone, as of 1950.
DNA-hypotheses: Crick and Watson hypothesized that the gene had a physical basis - it was helical.
DNA-predictions: from earlier work on tobacco mosaic virus, Watson was aware of the significance of Crick's formulation of the transform of a helix. Thus he was primed for the significance of the X-shape in photo 51.
DNA-experiments: Watson sees photo 51.

i will agree with mrwednesday though, that if those two shirts were supposed to be different, there isn't a big enough change really for it not to be an issue. Still enjoy your work though ramby.

I'll throw this out now - I'm not just a ramy hater. I own some ramy designs. Under different circumstances, I MIGHT get this one. So you can't just dismiss my criticism that way.

Ramy demonstrated none of the things you just said. Moreover, when this was designed, it wasn't intended to show any of things you OR Ramy said it was - it was in events of 2009, and tenuously there as well. It's a barely changed resub here, so I find it hard to swallow that suddenly this design was meant to be something completely different than it was 9 months ago (while still being almost identical to it). (I also don't think Ramy's description makes sense, but I'm tired right now so I'll reread it later before I respond to it)

Basically, there's not really a way to justify this as a display of the scientific method given the entry's history and it's current state. If it were significantly reworked, maybe!

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.